Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:44:53 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:


It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
ideal opportunity for them to break through, and the rest
of the administration looks distinctly weak, so it wasn't
overly difficult.

You should note that in a presidential system (as opposed to a
parliamentary), that the executive branch is quite distinct from the
legislative--which passes the laws that enable the executive to act.
While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis than
in a parliamentary government.

9/11 created a sudden awareness that we could no longer depend upon
our isolation and broad oceans to defend us from world terrorism.

If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment. (And maybe contrast
them to some of their predecessors in the previous administration.)

There is no way most of its policies can be described as
conservative.

Conservativism in America has certainly evolved. No disagreement at
all there. If there is a predominent concept in the current iteration,
it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
defense), but a moralistic perspective which (unfortunately) tries to
impose a basic form of Christianity on the nation. That's our domestic
debate and doesn't have a thing to do with the "neo-con" movement.

Exploding budget deficits?

It is very difficult to budget for wars that are thrust upon a nation
(unless of course, like Belgium, you establish a policy of
neutrality--I really liked your history lesson in a previous post in
which you described a 1940's Belgium ignoring the rise of Hitler and
depending upon France for your defense!)

Increased tax burden
on the middle class?

When the lowest 40% of wage-earners in America pay ZERO federal tax
and the top 5% of wage earners bear more than 40% of the total federal
tax burden, it is difficult to avoid having those who pay the most tax
reap the greatest benefit from a tax cut.

As for "increased tax burden on the middle class" I'd have to say you
are simply mouthing something you've heard, since the "middle class"
got a tax cut at the beginning of the Bush administration. A huge
segment of lower wage-earners got their taxes zeroed and mid-level
income workers saw their rates dropped by several percent.

If there is an increase for the middle class, it will come as the tax
cuts of the '01 legislation expire in the coming years. The Bush
administration has been lobbying to extend the cuts or make them
permanent.

Entering foreign military adventures of
their own volition?

After months of seeking assistance, after 18 UN resolutions, after a
unanimous vote of the Security Council.... Oh, and have you noted how
effective appeasement of the jihadists has been in Russia and France?

Expanding the power of the government?

Examples? Don't quote the PATRIOT act, unless you can give me an
example of some liberty that has been lost.


No real conservative administration would indulge in such
policies. These are the kind of policies true conservatives
accuse liberals of, often without good reason, but indeed many
neo-cons are former liberals. The few policies that can be
described as traditional conservative mostly relate to "family
values" such as opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

Actually those policies are referred to as "social" conservative
rather than "traditional". Neither social nor traditional
conservatives equate with neo-cons.

As a political movement the neo-cons cannot and should not
be described as traditional liberal or traditional conservative.
A conservative wants to decrease the power of the government;
a liberal wants to increase it to use it to cure the ills of society.

Generally true. No disagreement here at all. Except to note that to
win elections both liberals and conservatives have to become moderate
to gain support of the non-ideological.

Neo-conservatives want to increase the power of the government
simply because they believe that a nation should be "strong"
and therefore its government should be both powerful and
unfettered in its use of that power. That is, both internally and
externally, what this administration has done.

Ah yes. Now we get to it. Clearly you wouldn't like to see a strong
America. How terrible that would be. You'd much rather see a strong
Europe with a federal military capable of keeping you secure.

Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana". These people are
nationalist and, in the defence of their policies, populist. They
also have distinctly manicheist and authoritarian streak, but like
most far-right movements they can't be caught having much in
the way of actual policies.

Our far-right is distinctly moderate when viewed from the total
spectrum of political thought displayed in most European parliaments.

And, what is wrong with us being nationalist? I'm quite proud to call
myself an American first and a globalist about fifth or sixth on my
list of affiliations. And, I hope my government remains populist (even
when I disagree) because that is the nature of imperfect democracy.

While the name "neo-conservative" is a largely American
invention, the phenomenon is not limited to the USA. Aimilar
political movements are surfacing in many Western democracies.
Except that there such movements are described as "extreme right"
as (with a few unfortunate exceptions) kept from gaining power.

There you are stretching you interpretation of neo-conservatism.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
ideal opportunity for them to break through,

You need to go back farther than that, to Watergate. The Nixon humiliation
beheaded the Republican foreign policy establishment while the McGovernite
take-over of the Democrats drove hard-line foreign policy Democrats into
retreat. With the Carter presidency cementing a new, dovish Democratic foreign
policy paradigm, (although there were signs toward the end of the Carter
presidency that Carter was beginning to resurrect them), these people began
turning to the drifting Republican Party, allying behind former Democrat Ronald
Reagan, who was not highly regarded by the Republican establishment at all.
Reagan's administration sucked numbers of Democratic Party hard-line foreign
policy apparatchiks into its bureaucratic Republican bulk.
In retrospect, the destruction of the Nixon administration, and with it the
pragmatic foreign policy typical of "real" Republicans (who tend to be
businessmen, organization men, men in gray flannel suits--certainly not
firebrands), detente, which the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson foreign policy people
abhored, was a disaster for the dovish clique of Democrats. Between
appeasement and war is detente. The proponents of detente had been
discredited. That left appeasement, which Americans have limited tolerance for
and which Carter used up very quickly. So you get the firebrands--tear down
this wall, evil empire, axis of evil... If you don't like it, blame the crowd
who destroyed Richard "Ping-pong diplomacy" Nixon.

Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana".

Or the British. Or whomever. Great powers shape their world.

Now, if Kerry wins, we will get back the "neoliberals" of the Clinton
presidency, who have a world vision that is, in some ways, very much like that
of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. These guys are just as patriotic as the
neocons--after all, President Clinton and his people were fond of referring to
America as "the indespensible nation"--but they have a wider vision of American
power, one based more on economic power than military power. Then Secretary of
Commerce Mickey Kantor bragged in 1996, "trade and international economics have
joined the foreign policy table." The "neoliberal" (or, perhaps,
paleoconservative) expectation that securing a world open to trade and
investment will enable America to do good even as it does well fits squarely in
with the theories of pre-FDR Republicanism.
In President Clinton’s succinct formulation, "trade, investment, and
commerce" will produce "a structure of opportunity and peace." For neoliberals,
international arms limitations, multi-lateral military agreements, cutting
trade deals, reducing tariffs, protecting property rights, and running
interference for American private enterprise—the entire package gilded with
the idiom of globalization and earnest professions of America’s abiding
concern for democracy and human rights—constitute the heart of foreign
policy. In other words, you don't have to go around blowing people up to
ensure and expand America's power.
But what about when people go around blowing you up? There, the neo-liberals
(and paleo-conservatives) don't have a good track record. Enter the
neo-conservative (paleo-liberal?) who speaks of missile gaps (Kennedy), windows
of vulnerability (Reagan), and, in the incarnation of G.W. Bush, says to
militant muslim fanatics: "Your god promised you 72 Virginians if you died?
Well, here we are, ready to rock and roll.


Chris Mark

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Name the "neoconservatives" that occupy *any* *key* positions. Please.
Time
to put your money where your (overworked) mouth is.

It is of course pretty hard to judge what people's real opinions
are, and there is no such thing as a "neo-conservative party."
Some people described as neo-conservatives even prefer to
deny that there is such a thing at all, which does not make it
any easier.

However, fortunately there is Kristol's "Project for a New
American Century", which is as close to a formal neo-con
organisation as one is likely to get. The people who signed
the "manifesto" of the PNAC are the closest we have to
"card-carrying neo-conservatives", and they include
Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz. Other signatures are,
interestingly enough, those of Quayle, Fukuyama and Kagan,
and that of Jeb Bush; but not that of George Bush.

It is unlikely that many woukld really classify Cheney, or for that matter
Rumsfeld, as "neoconservatives", especially as both have been plain ol'
conservatives for many, many years. Wolfowitz is not what I would call in a
"key position" in Bush's cabinet (he is not a cabinet level official in the
first place).


It is true that "core" neocons such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton,
and Armitage, are not really in the top posts;

Thanks--then you admit spoke incorrectly when you alluded to so many "key
positions" being in the hands of "neoconservatives".

Brooks

but considering
the left-wing background (and relative youth) of many neocons
that does not come as a surprise. Neocon "converts" who
always have been loyal party men as well have the best cards
in this administration.

Other neocons are of course not really interested in active
politics, retired (Kirkpatrick) or discredited (Perle).

Probably Condoleezza Rice should also be considered
a neocon, despite her occasional support for Powell.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis
than in a parliamentary government.

This seems a pretty curious argument to me. These days, a
president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever
he wants. In a parliamentary government, a leader has to take
much more account of backbenchers who may choose to send
him or her home on any bad day (except if he really has a huge
majority, such as Blair has) or even may be the leader of a
coalition government, which requires a lot of compromise
and negotiation.

If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment.

How about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are
told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very
knowledgeable about the world outside the USA;

The danger of relying upon partial impressions and media pundits has
apparently befallen you. You have, IIRC, already said you were unwilling to
read Frank's new book, but a perusal of it would shed a different light on
Bush's leadership abilities and his knowledge (and willingness to listen to
others).

and not very
capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself
in the foot.

He has indeed been known to flumox his wording; which to some is a bit
refreshing, and less remindful of the polished
know-it-all-tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear politician types.

Claimed to make his own decisions -- but at least
some of his supposed underlings have a record of hiding
very important facts from him, and he didn't fire them.

Not sure about that (you have proven quite adept at making such accusations
and then backing off from them when specifics are requested, such as your
erecent "key positions" occupied by "neocons" statement). Again, you can
read Franks' accounts of his briefings to the President, and his
conversations with him in regards to major decisions--but you don't want to
bother with getting a first hand account, do you?


Or take Powell, for example. A good officer, I suppose; and
a honest man, but a weak politician. He is known to oppose
the neo-cons on many issues, but he still lets them walk all
over him. Worse, his foreign policy ventures have been less
than successful. Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes
back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day.

it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
defense),

Sorry, but that is nonsense. After 9/11, the Allies of the USA
were fully willing to consider this attack on the USA as an
attack on themselves as well (which in many ways it was,
anyway) and to activate NATO to deal with the problem.

yeah, just so long as it did not require them to really go out of their way
in handling the root problems (the UK, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Poland,
and non-Euro Australia excepted). Otherwise, it has usually involved only
token deployments, and then with with lots of strings attached.

However, at that point the USA decided unilaterally on a
policy that many of its allies considered to be extremely
foolhardy, and insisted that we had a suicide pact -- that
somehow we have an obligation to jump in the deep as
well.

A "suicide pact"? What you really meant was to say that you are fine with
being a staunch ally--that is, until you are actually required to put your
collective butts on the line, at which point it is no longer an alliance,
but a "suicide pact"?


Sorry, but no way! In an alliance, the decisions are made
together, in cooperation and consultation; and nobody can
object against the USA having a say commensurate with its
size and its efforts, but that is not the same as blind obedience.

Ever heard of "unity of command"?

The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing
insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them.

Just as some Euros are likewise capable of those same mutterings when others
*dare* to defy their own edicts (witness Chirac telling the eastern Euros to
"shut up"?).

Washington should do well to remember that European heads
of government are accountable to their own electorate, and
despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously
negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy
dictates from the White House.

Our dictate is that we are going to go wherever we have to go to stomp on
threats--you can either join us or sit on the sidelines. Your country made
its own call--any splinters yet from those bleacher seats?

Brooks

snip

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

These days, a
president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever
he wants.

You need to pay much more attention to U.S. governmental activity if you want
to comment on it. That statement above is absurd unless the majority you're
talking about is 2/3, which the Republicans don't currently have.

Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes
back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day.

At least he tried. How come no Belgian officials head off to Isreal or
Palastine to solve the problem? Pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and
critique the players, try getting in the game.

and nobody can
object against the USA having a say commensurate with its
size and its efforts

Hogwash! The U.S. say is equal to that of Belgium, UK, Poland, The Czech
Republic, etc., etc. Our "say" is much, much smaller than our contribution.

The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing
insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them.

I can't believe this "neo-con" thing has spread to Europe. I know it makes it
easier for you to *not* think about issues but you have to understand it makes
you look foolish. This "evil neo-con" thing is convenient for both
generalization and demonation, but since its an invention of people trying to
do this, you might want to stay away from the term in any discussion in which
you hope to come off as rational.

Washington should do well to remember that European heads
of government are accountable to their own electorate, and
despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously
negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy
dictates from the White House.

I'm glad you graps that, now remember it goes both ways.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ow about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are
told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very
knowledgeable about the world outside the USA; and not very
capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself


People with even lower IQ levels would be even more suitable for US Presidents
job.

There are not many fundamentel differences between Geoerge W. and Kerry.but
George W. will get reelected no matter what,only because if Kerry gets elected
he may replace some,not all only some,"Ordo Ab Chao" people in pivotal
positions and this is an unacceptable risk for some.

There are not many fundamentel differences between Geoerge W. and Kerry.but
George W. will get reelected no matter what,only because if Kerry gets
elected
he may replace some,not all only some,"Ordo Ab Chao" people in pivotal
positions and this is an unacceptable risk for some.


I must also add,if Kerry cannot give assurances to Ordo Ab Chao people OBL will
probably be " captured" a couple of weeks before election.
If Ordo Ab Chao people receive assurances from Kerry OBL "capture" will be
delayed till at least December,in this case George W.will probably have to go
back to Texas.

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Thelasian wrote:

Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign
infiltators"
So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of
the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks
on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not
foreign forces," (see below)

Here's the problem with people who don't understand what's going on in Iraq or
military operations in general


Oh I see - so you "understand" military operations better than the
commander of the 82nd Airborne. Gotcha.

And you claim - without an iota of evidence - that when Maj Gen.
Swannak said that, he was referring only to Baghdad. Well, how do you
know? What, did he appoint you do elucidate his views for him?


MOST of
Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran.

I'm sure you can provide proof that *MOST* of Iraq's dissendents have been
protected by the Iranian government "at some time or another". We're not
talking about a weekend visit here, al Sadr was living under protected status
in Iran for 4 years and was returned to Iraq *by the Iranian government*!


So was the entire Badr Corp, under Hakim, who incidentally is part of
the ruling coalition.



Does that
automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran?

What's that saying; if it smells, looks and acts like a duck, it must be a
duck.


Ducks for brains.


In fact the current
US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too?

Only if he stays there for 4 years as a guest of the goverment then re-enters
the country with the assistance of the Iranian government.


Like I said, pretty much every IRaqi dissident group had an office or
a center of operation in Iran, and for many years too.

So this election, to a very real extent, is a face-off
not between Republicans and Democrats, but between hard-line foreign policy
T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the
Kerry people.

"Whose party was it in New York last week, anyway? Bush, Cheney, Miller, and
McCain mentioned Franklin Roosevelt a total of seven times and Harry Truman
twice--always favorably. John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill
Clinton, speaking in comparable slots at the Democratic convention, mentioned
Truman not at all and Roosevelt a grand total of once,... So the break between
the World War II/Cold Warrior Democrats and the post-Vietnam Democrats is
complete. This is, after all, the core of Bush's foreign policy.... It could
establish the Republicans as a real majority party--as the Roosevelt-Reagan
party, as the Truman-Bush party...."

So writes William Kristal in the Sept. 13 edition of Weekly Standard.

Complete essay at:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...uofdm.asp?pg=1

Thelasian wrote:

Oh I see - so you "understand" military operations better than the
commander of the 82nd Airborne.

No genius, better than you and the reporter who wrote the story.

And you claim - without an iota of evidence - that when Maj Gen.
Swannak said that, he was referring only to Baghdad.

Go back, look at the transcript of the interview and you'll see the discussion
was about the 82nd ABs area of responsibility and not Iraq as a whole.

Well, how do you know?

Because I'm familiar with the interview and the way it was twisted by the
press.

Like I said, pretty much every IRaqi dissident group had an office or
a center of operation in Iran, and for many years too.


Say it all you want, that doesn't make it so.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"